Where evidence of uncharged sexual acts is admitted generally under s 31A of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA), no propensity warning is required. However, a trial judge should ordinarily direct the jury that they should not conclude the accused had a sexual interest in the complainant unless satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of that interest. The nature and extent of directions depends on the character of the evidence, whether admitted generally or for a limited purpose, and the circumstances of the case. The observation in GBT that a propensity warning was appropriate for uncharged acts admitted generally under s 31A should not be followed. The question whether HML v The Queen requires a beyond reasonable doubt direction in non-Pfennig jurisdictions remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.